Zimmerman's Best Friend Claims He Almost Died The Night He Killed Trayvon Martin

[rrkpp_]

[QUOTE=Mr. Smartass;37639203]For something that made no sense, you seemed to understand it pretty easily.
Anyway, that wasn't what he was saying. What he was saying was that this person was not a helpless child. There's a difference between the media's version of him
[t]http://www.sohh.com/img/trayvon-martin-2012-03-20-300x300.jpg[/t]
and the current one
[t]http://www.wagist.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Ax26X.jpg[/t][/QUOTE]

wow holy shit that totally justifies him getting shot to death i mean christ he has fake gold teeth AND played football?? this is nuts

[Peachy]

[QUOTE=Kopimi;37639268]wow holy shit that totally justifies him getting shot to death i mean christ he has fake gold teeth AND played football?? this is nuts[/QUOTE]
I'm just pointing out that he wasn't a defenseless child as many seem to be implying, and as the media was saying.

edit;
How did you even get "this person deserved to die" from "He wasn't a defenseless child? Did you just look at the pictures without even reading the post?

[thisispain]

[QUOTE=Mr. Smartass;37639249]But he's not just a kid, he was a 17 year old football player.[/QUOTE]

yeah that's a kid
he can't even drive by himself
he can't even buy a gun

[Peachy]

[QUOTE=thisispain;37639318]yeah that's a kid
he can't even drive by himself
he can't even buy a gun[/QUOTE]

You can drive by yourself at 17, what are you talking about?
Also, how does his ability to buy a gun factor into this at all?

[thisispain]

[QUOTE=Mr. Smartass;37639316]I'm just pointing out that he wasn't a defenseless child as many seem to be implying, and as the media was saying.[/QUOTE]

he was a defenseless kid, he had a can of tea in his hand.
if he had a gun you could make the argument that he wasn't defenseless

what fucking difference does it make anyway?

[rrkpp_]

[QUOTE=Mr. Smartass;37639316]I'm just pointing out that he wasn't a defenseless child as many seem to be implying, and as the media was saying.

edit;
How did you even get "this person deserved to die" from "He wasn't a defenseless child? Did you just look at the pictures without even reading the post?[/QUOTE]

i got there because you're desperately trying to make out this dead [B]kid[/B] as some sort of superhuman thug/football star as if it's any justification for what happened to him. he's still a kid whether or not he has the same spaghetti-like build as you, so me saying "zimmerman killed a kid" is still an accurate thing to say

[choco cookie]

Guys, he is saying he's a minor, not a kid. You guys need to stop huffing and puffing about it too. It is rather silly and a little bit more entertaining than LMAO pics, that's why I read the whole thread.

Put exaggerations and silly insults behind you because you will never look smarter than your opponent doing so. Debate correctly with facts, please. Also your debate will never end if you keep doing this. Or arguement. Whatever you want to call your little sprawl.

[Peachy]

[QUOTE=thisispain;37639327]he was a defenseless kid, he had a can of tea in his hand.
if he had a gun you could make the argument that he wasn't defenseless

what fucking difference does it make anyway?[/QUOTE]

But he wasn't defenseless. We still don't know who attacked first, or really much of what happened as there was only one witness. As he was a muscular 17 year old, it was COMPLETELY possible it was self defence. I was saying he wasn't a child, because its true. He was a minor, sure, but child implies that he was helpless.

[mobrockers2]

[QUOTE=Mr. Smartass;37639399]But he wasn't defenseless. We still don't know who attacked first, or really much of what happened as there was only one witness. As he was a muscular 17 year old, it was COMPLETELY possible it was self defence. I was saying he wasn't a child, because its true. He was a minor, sure, but child implies that he was helpless.[/QUOTE]

[img]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/5483751/Photos/2012-09-12_1001.png[/img]

[choco cookie]

[QUOTE=Mr. Smartass;37639399]But he wasn't defenseless. We still don't know who attacked first, or really much of what happened as there was only one witness. As he was a muscular 17 year old, it was COMPLETELY possible it was self defense. I was saying he wasn't a child, because it's true. He was a minor, sure, but child implies that he was helpless.[/QUOTE]

Technically he's right about him being not defenseless because that would imply he had no means of defense where he was living and able to defend himself, but he was not armed with any weapon so by law it would be worse than assault as it would be assault with a deadly weapon.

Remember it isn't a face of opinion, but a face of fact for these debates. Otherwise you are going to run around a circle debating if he's helpless or or a child and other silly little things.

[thisispain]

[QUOTE=Mr. Smartass;37639399]But he wasn't defenseless.[/QUOTE]

then why is he dead?

[rrkpp_]

[QUOTE=Mr. Smartass;37639399]But he wasn't defenseless. We still don't know who attacked first, or really much of what happened as there was only one witness. As he was a muscular 17 year old, it was COMPLETELY possible it was self defence. I was saying he wasn't a child, because its true. He was a minor, sure, but child implies that he was helpless.[/QUOTE]

you're really not great with english are you, first "bigot" and now "defenseless"

he was an unarmed minor faced against an adult with a loaded pistol lol, how much more defenseless do you need to be

[Gundevil]

[QUOTE=Kopimi;37639615]you're really not great with english are you, first "bigot" and now "defenseless"

he was an unarmed minor faced against an adult with a loaded pistol lol, how much more defenseless do you need to be[/QUOTE]

Zimmerman didn't go waving the pistol around, Martin was 17, hardly a minor and he is still at fault for his actions and he also had size and weight on him over Zimmerman. It is established that Martin did attack first as well, regardless of what you believe I will take a police statement over your own any day. So the defenceless part flew out the window the minute that was released to the press as a 'defenceless' person doesn't go starting fights.

Now answer me this, can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt with evidence that this was a murder. We are not trying to prove this as self defence, the court case is to prove that this was a second degree murder so do you actually believe there is enough evidence to convict him of murder, because from what I see is a big he said she said argument and people trying to piece the facts together and I can almost guarantee you that Zimmerman will not be convicted on the garbage you've been throwing around. The reason Casey Anthony got off was because of all the emotional bullshit they threw at her and not enough evidence and so far that's all I see anybody doing to try and convict Zimmerman. As sad as it is the facts so far show that Zimmerman was attacked first and defended himself with reasonable force as per Florida Law. So stop using the argument of his age and so forth, because his age has NOTHING to do in the matter.

[thisispain]

17 isn't hardly a minor, 17 is a minor

[mobrockers2]

[QUOTE=Gundevil;37639790]Zimmerman didn't go waving the pistol around, Martin was 17, hardly a minor and he is still at fault for his actions and he also had size and weight on him over Zimmerman. It is established that Martin did attack first as well, regardless of what you believe I will take a police statement over your own any day. So the defenceless part flew out the window the minute that was released to the press as a 'defenceless' person doesn't go starting fights.

Now answer me this, can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt with evidence that this was a murder. We are not trying to prove this as self defence, the court case is to prove that this was a second degree murder so do you actually believe there is enough evidence to convict him of murder, because from what I see is a big he said she said argument and people trying to piece the facts together and I can almost guarantee you that Zimmerman will not be convicted on the garbage you've been throwing around. The reason Casey Anthony got off was because of all the emotional bullshit they threw at her and not enough evidence and so far that's all I see anybody doing to try and convict Zimmerman. As sad as it is the facts so far show that Zimmerman was attacked first and defended himself with reasonable force as per Florida Law. So stop using the argument of his age and so forth, because his age has NOTHING to do in the matter.[/QUOTE]

No, the facts do not at all show that Zimmerman was attacked first, all it shows is that he attacked and killed a 17 year old whom he should not have been following and the only evidence of self defense is Zimmerman's own statement.

[editline]12th September 2012[/editline]

We don't have to prove that it is murder since he has already admitted to shooting Martin. It is now up to him to prove it was in self defense, something which he cannot because the only proof that exists is his own statement.

[Noble]

[QUOTE=thisispain;37639469]then why is he dead?[/QUOTE]

He wasn't defenseless, but he also wasn't bulletproof.

[itisjuly]

[QUOTE=mobrockers2;37639814]
We don't have to prove that it is murder since he has already admitted to shooting Martin. It is now up to him to prove it was in self defense, something which he cannot because the only proof that exists is his own statement.[/QUOTE]So next time I protect my life I have to call everyone to be a witness? Or take video while defending myself? He killed the teen, but there is no real evidence for or against self defense. What if he really is innocent? So we put him in jail anyway?

[mobrockers2]

[QUOTE=itisjuly;37640437]So next time I protect my life I have to call everyone to be a witness? Or take video while defending myself? He killed the teen, but there is no real evidence for or against self defense. What if he really is innocent? So we put him in jail anyway?[/QUOTE]

yes, exactly.when there is no evidence for self defense, it's murder, simple as that.there is evidence that it is murder. a kid is dead, shot by his gun, he admitted shooting him, that's murder unless he can prove self defense, which he can't.

[Hail Satan]

[QUOTE=Disotrtion;37638186]Just an FYI:[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure who's gun it could be, other than zimmerman's

[Peachy]

[QUOTE=thisispain;37639469]then why is he dead?[/QUOTE]

For the same reason that armed troops die. You don't need to be defenseless to die.

[QUOTE=thisispain;37639792]17 isn't hardly a minor, 17 is a minor[/QUOTE]

You don't magically grow muscles and become a man the second you turn 18, the change is gradual and starts in the teenage years.

[editline]12th September 2012[/editline]

[QUOTE=mobrockers2;37640752]yes, exactly.when there is no evidence for self defense, it's murder, simple as that.there is evidence that it is murder. a kid is dead, shot by his gun, he admitted shooting him, that's murder unless he can prove self defense, which he can't.[/QUOTE]

Innocent until proven guilty.

[BusterBluth]

[QUOTE=mobrockers2;37640752]yes, exactly.when there is no evidence for self defense, it's murder, simple as that.there is evidence that it is murder. a kid is dead, shot by his gun, he admitted shooting him, that's murder unless he can prove self defense, which he can't.[/QUOTE]

Burden of proof in on the state. They have to prove it was murder and not self defense.

[rrkpp_]

[QUOTE=Mr. Smartass;37645594]Innocent until proven guilty.[/QUOTE]

"someone help i can't read so i am ignoring the fact that legally, self defense is guilty until proven innocent help im drooling on my keyboard"

[editline]12th September 2012[/editline]

[QUOTE=BusterBluth;37645801]Burden of proof in on the state. They have to prove it was murder and not self defense.[/QUOTE]

see above

[BusterBluth]

[QUOTE=Kopimi;37645889]"someone help i can't read so i am ignoring the fact that legally, self defense is guilty until proven innocent help im drooling on my keyboard"

[editline]12th September 2012[/editline]

see above[/QUOTE]

No, self defense is legally pleading not guilty to murder, because self defense is not murder.

[editline]12th September 2012[/editline]

If you remember, Zimmerman pleaded not guilty. So is he not claiming self defense anymore or did I miss something?

[Peachy]

[QUOTE=Kopimi;37645889]"someone help i can't read so i am ignoring the fact that legally, self defense is guilty until proven innocent help im drooling on my keyboard"
[/QUOTE]
No it's not, it's ALWAYS innocent until proven guilty.
[url]http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2901.05[/url]
The burden of proof lies on the state.

[rrkpp_]

[QUOTE=BusterBluth;37645912]No, self defense is legally pleading not guilty to murder, because self defense is not murder.

[editline]12th September 2012[/editline]

If you remember, Zimmerman pleaded not guilty. So is he not claiming self defense anymore or did I miss something?[/QUOTE]

if you remember he admitted to shooting a kid to death

keep in mind (prepare yourself): killing someone without proof that it was self defense = murder

its zimmermans job to prove he was acting in self defense, not the other way around. seriously this has been covered a million times and no matter how much you bang your fists on your desk and say its not true, it is, thats how it works. he pleaded not guilty to murder, but we have evidence that he [B]killed someone[/B], which GENERALLY is plenty fucking evidence for a murder charge whether or not they plead guilty or not guilty.

[editline]12th September 2012[/editline]

[QUOTE=Mr. Smartass;37645987]No it's not, it's ALWAYS innocent until proven guilty.
[url]http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2901.05[/url]
The burden of proof lies on the state.[/QUOTE]

[quote]The burden of going forward with the evidence of an affirmative defense, and the burden of proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, for an affirmative defense, is upon the accused.[/quote]

burden of proof for the action of self defense is on the accused

read your own source

[editline]12th September 2012[/editline]

i just killed 8 people inside my house and there were no witnesses other than me

its self defense though and you cant prove otherwise so i guess i get to go free haha justice!!

[BusterBluth]

[QUOTE=Kopimi;37646003]if you remember he admitted to shooting a kid to death

keep in mind (prepare yourself): killing someone without proof that it was self defense = murder

its zimmermans job to prove he was acting in self defense, not the other way around. seriously this has been covered a million times and no matter how much you bang your fists on your desk and say its not true, it is, thats how it works. he pleaded not guilty to murder, but we have evidence that he [B]killed someone[/B], which GENERALLY is plenty fucking evidence for a murder charge whether or not they plead guilty or not guilty.[/QUOTE]

You said [B]legally[/B]. Legally he is being charged with murder so legally the state must prove it was murder. Zimmerman will have to provide evidence that supports his side of the story, no shit. But it is still on the state [B]legally[/B] to prove it was murder.

Don't imply someone is an idiot when you are stating something that factually isn't true.

[rrkpp_]

[QUOTE=BusterBluth;37646083]You said [B]legally[/B]. Legally he is being charged with murder so legally the state must prove it was murder. Zimmerman will have to provide evidence that supports his side of the story, no shit. But it is still on the state [B]legally[/B] to prove it was murder.

Don't imply someone is an idiot when you are stating something that factually isn't true.[/QUOTE]

uh no sorry, you're not understanding this at all

the prosecution wants to charge him with murder. he has admitted to killing a person. if we cut the case right there, he's guilty of murder because he fuckin killed somebody. let that sink in, i know it may be an alien concept but if you kill someone, its generally up to you to explain the corpse away. now its up to him to say "yes i killed him BUT it wasn't murder because:" which he has failed to do. idk how i can make it more simple for you but sorry you're wrong

[editline]12th September 2012[/editline]

i love how you dudes just cling to this childlike obsession with the "innocent until proven guilty" catchphrase and act as if your memorization of a motto somehow invalidates the actual law behind self defense prosecution lmao

[BusterBluth]

[QUOTE=Kopimi;37646125]uh no sorry, you're not understanding this at all

the prosecution wants to charge him with murder. he has admitted to killing a person. if we cut the case right there, he's guilty of murder because he fuckin killed somebody. let that sink in, i know it may be an alien concept but if you kill someone, its generally up to you to explain the corpse away. now its up to him to say "yes i killed him BUT it wasn't murder because:" which he has failed to do. idk how i can make it more simple for you but sorry you're wrong[/QUOTE]

He plead not guilty. Once again, [B]legally[/B] pleading not guilty to the charge of murder with the defense of self defense is not the same as pleading guilty. Just as pleading not guilty to murder due to insanity is [B]legally[/B] not pleading guilty to murder.

[editline]12th September 2012[/editline]

I'm not clinging to anything. He has not been found guilty of anything. You can not say he is legally guilty of murder when there hasn't even been a court date yet.

[rrkpp_]

[QUOTE=BusterBluth;37646212]He plead not guilty. Once again, [B]legally[/B] pleading not guilty to the charge of murder with the defense of self defense is not the same as pleading guilty. Just as pleading not guilty to murder due to insanity is [B]legally[/B] not pleading guilty to murder.[/QUOTE]

nobody said he was pleading guilty to murder omg how dense are you

he admitted to killing a person. that is plenty evidence for a murder conviction UNTIL he says "but it was self defense". then the courts let him present his case and explain WHY he killed that person, and if he can sufficiently prove that he was acting in self defense, the charge is dropped. read the source Smartass posted (and accidentally embarrassed himself with), its right there, i shouldn't have to constantly remind you of this. the dude killed someone and now its his turn to prove he acted in self defense. i honestly have no fuckin clue how to explain this to you and make it any simpler but you seem to be completely incapable of understanding a very VERY simple concept, ie if you kill someone you better explain WHY or you're going away for murder. nobody ever ever ever ever ever claimed he pleaded guilty to murder so you can stop reiterating that he pleaded not guilty.

[editline]12th September 2012[/editline]

honestly how mindblowing is this for you?? is this really that hard to get? he pleads not guilty to murder. that doesn't magically mean hes not guilty and gets to walk free. he has to prove he isn't guilty, which will be difficult because the prosecution already has his admission of killing someone. aaaaaa i give up dude

[BusterBluth]

[QUOTE=Kopimi;37646240]nobody said he was pleading guilty to murder omg how dense are you

he admitted to killing a person. that is plenty evidence for a murder conviction UNTIL he says "but it was self defense". then the courts let him present his case and explain WHY he killed that person, and if he can sufficiently prove that he was acting in self defense, the charge is dropped. read the source Smartass posted (and accidentally embarrassed himself with), its right there, i shouldn't have to constantly remind you of this. the dude killed someone and now its his turn to prove he acted in self defense. i honestly have no fuckin clue how to explain this to you and make it any simpler but you seem to be completely incapable of understanding a very VERY simple concept, ie if you kill someone you better explain WHY or you're going away for murder. nobody ever ever ever ever ever claimed he pleaded guilty to murder so you can stop reiterating that he pleaded not guilty.

[editline]12th September 2012[/editline]

honestly how mindblowing is this for you?? is this really that hard to get? he pleads not guilty to murder. that doesn't magically mean hes not guilty and gets to walk free. he has to prove he isn't guilty, which will be difficult because the prosecution already has his admission of killing someone. aaaaaa i give up dude[/QUOTE]

This all started when you posted.
[QUOTE=Kopimi;37645889]"someone help i can't read so i am ignoring the fact that legally, self defense is guilty until proven innocent help im drooling on my keyboard"
[/QUOTE]

Legally, self defense is still innocent. He isn't guilty of murder, because he hasn't been convicted of it yet. Thats all I have been arguing.